Krauthammer: SCOTUS overturning the Illinois union-dues mandate would be a “blow to organized labor from which they would not recover”

posted at 9:01 pm on January 21, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Ed already covered the Harris v. Quinn arguments concerning forced unionization making their way through the Supreme Court, but here’s a quick food-for-thought addendum: As George Will points out, union participation has been dropping precipitously for decades, and they depend upon concentrated government support to keep their blue model going. If the Supreme Court were to rule against Labor in this case — a scenario that Krauthammer admits he thinks is unlikely — “they know it’s the power of the state that keeps them going, and in the absence of it, they really are looking at ruin.”

Krauthammer: I think this would be a blow to organized labor from which they would not recover. Unless you force people into these unions, they generally don’t go. As we saw in Wisconsin, as we saw in Indiana, once you release government workers from the obligation to actually pay into a union — in Indiana, for example, the government stopped collecting dues on behalf of the union. Membership collapsed by 80, 90 percent. … I would guess the Supreme Court is not going to overturn this. It is really quite loathe to overturning longstanding arrangements. … There are ways in which it could rule in a less radical way. For example, it could say that these workers don’t have to be deemed state workers which would be slightly different from saying you’re a state worker, you now have to pay into a union. So I suspect they are going to look for a way to be less sweeping in their ruling.

Just “deem” everyone receiving welfare and food stamps a state employee and bam! Unemployment is 0% plus you get a 1/4 back as dues direct to the unions (democrat) pockets. Democrat voters for life, democrat politicians for life. It’s a win-win!

I would expect that the court will say that the home based providers cannot be deemed state employees. If the basis for that designation was that they were benefiting from money paid to eligible recipients then a next step would be to make food stamps and welfare recipients state employees too.

State employees, especially union members, are entitled to State paid vacation, sick leave, retirement, and health insurance, aren’t they? They are also supposed to comply with the collective bargaining contract, something that I am sure all the home-based providers are completely familiar with.

Roberts is an incrementalist. The incremental approach is to say that receiving payments (probably split hairs and say those payment are not salary or wages) from the State (via eligible recipients) does not make the providers into State employees.

If you really wanted to make a Governor regret deeming people as employees, though it would possibly butress unions, the court could require compliance with fair labor standards, payment of overtime, provision of sick and vacation leave as well as retirement benefits and health insurance. If the State were forced to treat all these folks as full-time State employees with appropriate salary or wages I think the State might reconsider because of the cost.

I’m sorry, but “deeming” people who receive state support as being state employees is not a longstanding arrangement.

worldtvlr on January 21, 2014 at 9:23 PM

The longstanding arrangement he’s referring to is the “release government workers from the obligation to actually pay into a union” bit, something which really would hammer the public sector unions hard. Although he’s also saying they’re more likely to just curb the particular overreach that you refer to, rather than making a decision with larger ramifications. Which is better than nothing, I guess.

I would guess the Supreme Court is not going to overturn this. It is really quite loathe to overturning longstanding arrangements.

Only if you judge those arrangements to be fair, equitable and to not infringe on your constitutional rights.

With all due respect to the good doctor, his statement aptly displays exactly what is wrong with our country and contemporary Republican thinking. It lacks the courage to pursue well-reasoned, righteous ends.

Just because a decision was formed by other courts does not mean it is right or just. It requires perspective and context for the time and circumstances under which such decision were formed.

I dare say the right of free association and free speech outweighs the tyrannical hand of government to impose its will haphazardly upon the people of our nation.

Haven’t we had enough of government intrusion on our individual rights?
That being said, the one primary thing the Roberts Court lacks is courage and I have zero expectation of a positive outcome for the people of our nation.

I asked this on yesterday’s thread. If these parents are now considered state employees, will medicaid have to pay them at least minimum wage? What about overtime? Most parents of disabled children are on call 24/7/365. What would that do to the state budget.